Supreme Court, in immunity ruling, makes president a king who can do no wrong
Editor:
I avoided writing about the immunity decision because it’s stitched together and hard to follow. There are lots of gaps. Now I have been pretty much challenged to write about it.
A layman just wrote the Hub and described the recent immunity decision from SCOTUS. He was absolutely wrong! I assume he did not read it and listened to TV.
The president should and did have a huge number of necessary immunities including all the examples the writer gave. In the past, however, if there was probable cause to believe he/she went well beyond what was needed as President and committed a crime that was not needed to execute his responsibilities, the court could secretly review internal memos to see if they should be provided to a prosecutor. This turnover of materials first happened with Nixon in the early ’70s.
What we know now is that “core” functions – those mentioned in the Constitution – are certainly and absolutely immune. That would include selling pardons. Trump says it includes classifying certain American newscasters as enemy combatants. His lawyers say killing American politicians. Additionally, he/she could, for example, give away or sell national secrets. (He can already kill foreign nationals and Americans fighting with an enemy in most situations.)
Then there are “official acts.” That is what the writer thought the immunity case was about. They are not yet fully defined but are presumed immune and can trump Congress’s laws.
And because the law now is that no communication regarding an intended crime with anyone in the executive branch can be used or can legally consider motive or intent, we have no guidelines about where official acts ends and where prosecutable “private acts” start.
Are overheard private conversations “official acts”? Trump is arguing that about some evidence used to corroborate other evidence in his felony conviction.
We have never had a situation before where simply put “the King can do no wrong.” Indeed, VP Nominee Vance says this immunity actually includes ignoring Supreme Court decisions and orders.
Another matter in the letter was that Ukraine would not have been invaded due to Trump’s strong persona. I assume the writer did not listen to the master’s class in foreign policy Biden gave in his NATO presser. Rather than argue a huge topic I refer all to Wiki. (Insert “Name” and “Foreign Policy.”) Compare them. Personally I have not seen a President so expertly handle such extremely difficult situations since Bush 1 when the Soviet Union crumbled a country at a time.
To me these are not times for a bull in a china shop.
Additionally think about it, if Trump and Vance carry through on “switching sides” and chumming up to Russia with its political, military, and economic alliances and treaties we, the US, by default end up squarely in bed with Iran, China, and North Korea. We give up leadership of the free world.
The truth is that Trump is no foreign policy expert.
The other matter of substance was a put down of my recent mention of similarities to the German Enabling Acts of 1933. The writer could not have looked them up as he got “official acts” wrong and ignored 2025 – all the more important as VP nominee Vance says he is fully committed to installing the “MAGA Agenda.”
To me the immunity, the commitment to the MAGA agenda, Trump’s post immunity threat to declare newscasters enemy combatants, and Vance’s position on ignoring the Supreme Court all shout “Danger Will Robinson! Danger!”
From their statements it’s clear the Republicans have two proven flame throwers on their hands. When Vance was a never Trumper in 2017 he pondered “if” Trump is “America’s Hitler.” But truthfully in these post attempted assassination days I hope we will see a return to decorum.
Regardless, SOTUS’s step away from historical Constitutional Order certainly put the MAGA agenda one step closer.
Conrad F. Cropsey
Albion
